SCOTUS Strikes Down Unconstitutional Texas Abortion Law

[IcebergSlim]

Satan's baby murderers rejoice at the news.

Gassy,

Shouldn't you be gestating?

 

[kaz]

The law was directly intended to restrict access to abortion rather than further women's health. But regardless of how one feels about abortion (and I admit to being conflicted) Mississippi is one of the affected states, and our child welfare agency was nearly taken over by the Feds for failure to actually protect children in state custody, and is still hanging by a thread despite a state supreme court justice taking over the agency and the state pumping in millions.

In short, the states so adamant about "protecting fetuses" seem the least interest in protecting children.

Exactly the process the Supreme Court goes by. They decide if they agree with a law and the reasoning for it and if not, they fix it. Which is not their Constitutional role. They are lawless criminals in robes

 

[guno]

Satan's baby murderers rejoice at the news.

delusional christers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since when having a procedure in a hospital is an undue restriction?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Satan's baby murderers rejoice at the news.

delusional christers

 

[guno]

The law was directly intended to restrict access to abortion rather than further women's health. But regardless of how one feels about abortion (and I admit to being conflicted) Mississippi is one of the affected states, and our child welfare agency was nearly taken over by the Feds for failure to actually protect children in state custody, and is still hanging by a thread despite a state supreme court justice taking over the agency and the state pumping in millions.

In short, the states so adamant about "protecting fetuses" seem the least interest in protecting children.

hit it on the head

 

[bendog]

The law was directly intended to restrict access to abortion rather than further women's health. But regardless of how one feels about abortion (and I admit to being conflicted) Mississippi is one of the affected states, and our child welfare agency was nearly taken over by the Feds for failure to actually protect children in state custody, and is still hanging by a thread despite a state supreme court justice taking over the agency and the state pumping in millions.

In short, the states so adamant about "protecting fetuses" seem the least interest in protecting children.

Exactly the process the Supreme Court goes by. They decide if they agree with a law and the reasoning for it and if not, they fix it. Which is not their Constitutional role. They are lawless criminals in robes

Texas and other states were unable to show that abortions had any more complications that other out patient treatments allowed for other medical conditions. Three middle aged male catholics who admit they are pro life voted for Texas. But it wasn't legally or factually a difficult case.

 

[NLT]

Mississippi is one of the affected states, and our child welfare agency was nearly taken over by the Feds for failure to actually protect children in state custody,.

I bet the Child welfare system in MS is being run by democrats


Most state and federal agencys are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's a Dem twofer: they abort the fetus who then automatically becomes a registered Democrat

 

[kaz]

The law was directly intended to restrict access to abortion rather than further women's health. But regardless of how one feels about abortion (and I admit to being conflicted) Mississippi is one of the affected states, and our child welfare agency was nearly taken over by the Feds for failure to actually protect children in state custody, and is still hanging by a thread despite a state supreme court justice taking over the agency and the state pumping in millions.

In short, the states so adamant about "protecting fetuses" seem the least interest in protecting children.

Exactly the process the Supreme Court goes by. They decide if they agree with a law and the reasoning for it and if not, they fix it. Which is not their Constitutional role. They are lawless criminals in robes

Texas and other states were unable to show that abortions had any more complications that other out patient treatments allowed for other medical conditions. Three middle aged male catholics who admit they are pro life voted for Texas. But it wasn't legally or factually a difficult case.

Yes, and that's a good argument to make to the Texas legislature. Making life fair isn't in the bill of rights or anywhere else in the Constitution as a Federal power

 

[g5000]

Since when having a procedure in a hospital is an undue restriction?

The law did not require abortions be performed in a hospital.

 

[Lakhota]

Keep NaziCons out of vaginas!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Keep NaziCons out of vaginas!

^^^ Yet another stupid comment from the fake injun

 

[g5000]

From the ruling:

The requirement's purpose is to help ensure that women have easy access to a hospital should complications arise during an abortion procedure, but the District Court, relying on evidence showing extremely low rates of serious complications before H.B.2's passage, found no significant health-related problem for the new law to cure. The State's record evidence, in contrast, does not show how the new law advanced the State's legitimate interest in protecting women's health when compared to the prior law, which required providers to have a "working arrangement" with doctors who had admitting privileges.

 

[Lakhota]

SCOTUS STRIKES DOWN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TEXAS ABORTION LAW.

You should change your thread title to lower case; otherwise, it will likely get zapped.

 

[320 Years of History]

The government needs to "get out of" our bedrooms and "get out of" women's uteruses.

The law was directly intended to restrict access to abortion rather than further women's health.

Basic supply and demand: supply goes down --> price increases --> demand goes down. Eventually the good/service becomes such that only wealthy people demand it. If/when that happens re: abortion in the U.S., poor people will be forced to have children they can't afford to have because they also cannot afford an abortion. "Knocked up" rich women, however, will be able to avoid the challenges that accompany unwanted pregnancy.

Why did I mention that? Because I've long maintained that it's just absurd for non-wealthy folks think the GOP actually has their interests at heart. The GOP's stance in the abortion debate is just another illustration of how the GOP doesn't really care about the circumstances of the non-wealthy.

Abortion just happens to be an issue whereby the GOP can obfuscate the real impact of its stance by injecting faith-based morality into the discussion. The time for the morality is before opting to engage in coitus. The couple having unprotected sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy tossed morality out the door when they "did the nasty." Clearly they at best have little regard for morality. There's no point in trying to force them to have some after the fact. It's not as though they are going to exhibit probity such that the child is well reared. How could they? They having learned the lesson themselves; they surely can't teach what they don't understand themselves....

 

[g5000]

Keep NaziCons out of vaginas!

You are looking in the wrong place. The fetus being killed is several inches above the vagina. No wonder you idiots are easily confused. You don't know the basics of anatomy or reproduction.

This graphic created for dolts like you with the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker are deliberately designed to avert your eyes away from the fetus being murdered.

 

[g5000]

The law was very obviously intended to make it harder to get an abortion and had nothing to do with protecting women's health. Even a blind mouse could see that.

It was a dick move. Pun intended.

 

[Dragonlady]

Congratulations libs you can KILL more babies. I tell you what explain it to God and good luck with that.

I don't have to explain anything to God. I never had an abortion. That's what being "pro-choice" means. I chose to carry my pregnancies to term. If you believe abortion is wrong, you don't have to have one either. This is called "Freedom".

 

[320 Years of History]

There's also the question of the right of the doctors to practice medicine. It makes no sense that a doctor should have "privilege" restrictions for one procedure when those restrictions don't exist for many others. That's a pretty anti-capitalist/anti-business stance.